News Can Socialism Provide a Stable Political Framework?

[TheStatutoryApe]

Silly is sometimes good (and necessary)... but you've lost me on the quote "It's a sin! Not Ludvig Van!". and yes, it was for my own good. I was being too polite by half! And I'm enjoying not feeling like I've got to be so polite any more

Lol... The quote is paraphrased from A Clockwork Orange(the movie anyway). Have you seen it? Alex is the name of the main character. He was very sadistic but is later brainwashed to have adverse reactions to the things such as violence and sex that he found so pleasurable. Unfortunately this process employed films with Beethoven for a soundtrack. He wound up being conditioned to no longer stand to listening to Beethoven who was his favorite composer. When he realized what the music was he was listening to he asked them to stop it and use any other music instead. They went ahead anyway because it was for his own good.

 

[alexandra]

Lol... The quote is paraphrased from A Clockwork Orange(the movie anyway). Have you seen it? Alex is the name of the main character. He was very sadistic but is later brainwashed to have adverse reactions to the things such as violence and sex that he found so pleasurable. Unfortunately this process employed films with Beethoven for a soundtrack. He wound up being conditioned to no longer stand to listening to Beethoven who was his favorite composer. When he realized what the music was he was listening to he asked them to stop it and use any other music instead. They went ahead anyway because it was for his own good.

Ah, yes - I remember that movie; very disturbing. I watched some of it years ago, but found it too disturbing to watch right through. I see the joke now - and I would also scream 'Not Ludwig Van' at such torture I love Beethoven's and Mozart's music (preference depends on my mood).

 

[SOS2008]

Continuation from "Leaving the Left"

I alluded to this in another thread, but this is one of the few remaining Marxist myths that people still believe, and they only still believe it because they are being tricked by those who they choose as leaders. The vast majority of people have outgrown the unrealistic/idealistic Marxist utopia vision, but they still cling to a few Marxist prinicples. This one in particular, namely, the myth that the rich get rich by standing on the backs of the workers. Naa, maybe that's unfair - in Marx's time it may not have been a myth. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. In the time of sweatshops and child labor, maybe it was true. But as the data clearly shows, it is not true today.

http://www.colorado.edu/English/ENGL2012Klages/marxism.html

There are two major groups according to Marx: the proletariat, which consists of the workers who have to sell their labor power in order to survive, and the owners of the means of production, or capitalists. There is also a third class in the capitalist mode of production, a middle class, called the bourgeoisie, who do not sell their labor power directly, but who provide services (for the laborers and the capitalists)--merchants, doctors, teachers, etc. --and who identify themselves with the capitalists, and uphold their interests, rather than with the proletariat.

IMO if this is updated to the present (in the U.S.), the bourgeoisie is the 10% of wealth, the doctor, lawyer, banker, and let’s substitute teacher (because teachers are no longer as revered or paid well) perhaps some IT, engineers, etc., along with the merchant class (entrepreneur/small business owner). The proletariat, or true middle class is now the teacher, nurse, (educated but lower paid, female dominated fields) along with the various skilled laborers such as electricians, etc. down to the poverty level (32,000 to 18,000). I’m not sure where those below poverty/homeless etc. fit in the theory then or now.

With this in mind, I previously posted the article excerpt as follows:

The working class's refusal to synchronize its politics with its economic interests is one of the enduring puzzles of the present age. Between 1989 and 1997, middle-income families (defined in this instance as the middle 20 percent) saw their share of the nation's wealth fall from 4.8 percent to 4.4 percent. ...As the GOP drifts further to the right, and becomes more starkly the party of the wealthy, it is gaining support among the working class.

I have never seen a wholly satisfactory explanation for this trend, which now spans two generations. It's the decline of unions, says Thomas Frank. It's values, says Tom Edsall. It's testosterone, says Arlie Russell Hochschild. Each of these explanations seems plausible up to a point, but even when taken together, their magnitude doesn't seem big enough. Republicans, of course, will argue that it's simply the working man's understanding that the GOP has the better argument, i.e., that the best way to help the working class is to shower the rich with tax breaks. But the Bush administration has been showering the rich with tax breaks for more than four years, and the working class has nothing to show for it.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2118237/#ContinueArticle

Marx’s theory provides an answer to this puzzle. As stated above, the bourgeoisie “identify themselves with the capitalists, and uphold their interests, rather than with the proletariat.” Even though the bourgeoisie is much more dependent on a healthy middle class. However, where the theory may be wrong, is that the proletariat also identifies with the capitalists, and therefore do not experience “alienation.” Still, Marx’s theory provides a possible answer to this phenomenon (and what I personally consider as a lottery mentality of human nature, as well as lack of reasoning due to ignorance of the “masses”):

The economic base (the relations and forces of production) in any society generates other social formations, called the SUPERSTRUCTURE. The superstructure consists of all other kinds of social activities or systems, including politics, religion, philosophy, morality, art, and science (etc.). All of these aspects of a society are, in Marxist theory, determined by (i.e. shaped, formed, or created by) the economic base.

Another way of asking this question is to look at the relations between economic base and a particular aspect of superstructure, which Marxists name IDEOLOGY. Ideology, or ideologies, are the ideas that exist in a culture; there will typically be one or several kinds of religious ideologies, for example, and political ideologies, and aesthetic ideologies, which will articulate what, and how, people can think about religion, politics, and art, respectively. Ideology is how a society thinks about itself, the forms of social consciousness that exist at any particular moment; ideologies supply all the terms and assumptions and frameworks that individuals use to understand their culture, and ideologies supply all the things that people believe in, and then act on.

For Marx, ideology, as part of the superstructure generated by an economic base, works to justify that base; the ideologies present in a capitalist society will explain, justify, and support the capitalist mode of production.

Is this really the reason? I’ve often been bewildered as to why religious women support actions that take away their own freedoms (e.g. birth control). Well, religion is a superstructure for ideology—yes, IMO this is the reason.

So I disagree that it is the Democrats who are going around trying to brain wash everyone, and in fact this kind of accusation may be used well via “the ideologies present in a capitalist society” to “explain, justify, and support the capitalist mode of production.” It makes more sense that those with power (the 1% with wealth) would be responsible for propaganda protecting the status quo they benefit from so much—and use both political parties to that end.

However, some politicians may be better manipulated than others (especially if they owe a lot of folks).

…forced equality doesn't bring everyone up, it brings everyone down

You mean like the way EHM/multinationals hop from one country to another exploiting labor around the world (NAFTA/CAFTA)? And like there is allegiance to a country, or care for the environment, or care for anything except profit? Doesn’t that anger you?

… 'we will take money from the rich and give it to you'. Or maybe the idea is that the rich should pay their fair share. Do you support tax cuts for the rich, including removal of the “Death Tax?”

Guest worker amnesty, trade agreements like CAFTA—talk about leveling the playing field, and who’s tricking who? Who benefits from these things—that’s who.

As a side note, this is not just effecting the U.S. – Here’s an article entitled: "The Big Squeeze: A 'second wave' of offshoring could threaten middle-income, white-collar and skilled blue-collar jobs."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7936464/site/newsweek/site/newsweek/

 

[vanesch]

People like us that read too much and discuss ideas would like to believe that we can solve problems by better educating people and providing more resources for an academic, scholarly learning environment. In reality, I honestly think that vocational education at a younger age is the best option for a lot of people. Skills are just as marketable as intellect.

I think that what you say here is very true. Most "politically correct" educational visions are radically against this view, and I've seen what it does in France, where there is no public system anymore to go outside of general schooling before 15-16 years to learn manual skills. That's too late. We then see a lot of people be apprentices at (after having tried several failed "academic" ways) 20-21 years, something they should have done when they were 14 and they would now have a decent professional life ; while they are now feeling frustrated and aren't easy to emploi.

cheers,
Patrick.

 

[russ_watters]

IMO if this is updated to the present (in the U.S.), the bourgeoisie is the 10% of wealth, the doctor, lawyer, banker, and let’s substitute teacher (because teachers are no longer as revered or paid well) perhaps some IT, engineers, etc., along with the merchant class (entrepreneur/small business owner). The proletariat, or true middle class is now the teacher, nurse, (educated but lower paid, female dominated fields) along with the various skilled laborers such as electricians, etc. down to the poverty level (32,000 to 18,000).

In my area, teachers make an average of $55k, but other than that, I'm with you so far...

I’m not sure where those below poverty/homeless etc. fit in the theory then or now.

According to Marxism, that middle class should become virtually nonexistant (tiny) and the entire working class should become impoverished under capitalism. That's the whole point of the revolution: conditions become untenable for a high fraction of the population, so they revolt. Anyway, that doesn't have a whole lot to do with my point, but apparently its just background info anyway...

With this in mind, I previously posted the article excerpt as follows:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2118237/#ContinueArticle

My response is the same as before: the simple and obvious reason why people are not troubled by the income disparity enough to organize and revolt (whether violently or non-violently) is that the income disparity is irrelevant.

Marx’s theory provides an answer to this puzzle. As stated above, the bourgeoisie “identify themselves with the capitalists, and uphold their interests, rather than with the proletariat.” Even though the bourgeoisie is much more dependent on a healthy middle class.

Again, I agree as well, though that doesn't tell us why. The reason why is that the middle class is not in peril. The middle class is prospering.

However, where the theory may be wrong, is that the proletariat also identifies with the capitalists, and therefore do not experience “alienation.”

I would agree with that as well. Again, though, why? The answer to that is The American Dream - something Marx never considered possible: total class mobility. The lower class don't want to punish the upper class, they want to become the upper class - and they know in the system we have, that is a possibility.

Still, Marx’s theory provides a possible answer to this phenomenon (and what I personally consider as a lottery mentality of human nature, as well as lack of reasoning due to ignorance of the “masses”):

Well...

Is this really the reason? I’ve often been bewildered as to why religious women support actions that take away their own freedoms (e.g. birth control). Well, religion is a superstructure for ideology—yes, IMO this is the reason.

That's the rub, isn't it: when someone is being actively injured, ignorance is not an excuse. People who are being injured will tend to reject what is injuring them and look for an alternative. They do not just sit there and take it. The birth control example is near-perfect: the Catholic Church is very near splitting over that issue (and several others) because women are not accepting the church's position. So the only logical conclusion for why the lower/middle classes do not reject capitalism (and from the data, we see that it is correct) is that the lower/middle classes are not being injured by capitalism.

Now, all that is interesting, but I don't see how its relevant:

So I disagree that it is the Democrats who are going around trying to brain wash everyone, and in fact this kind of accusation may be used well via “the ideologies present in a capitalist society” to “explain, justify, and support the capitalist mode of production.” It makes more sense that those with power (the 1% with wealth) would be responsible for propaganda protecting the status quo they benefit from so much—and use both political parties to that end.

Huh? First of all, I'm not claiming that democrats hold that tightly to Marxist ideas. The connection is much more vague. Regardless, maybe I see how you mean to connect this to my quote - you think the Right is brainwashing people and that is why the country is moving to the right. Trouble is, you provided a good counter-argument to this brainwashing assertion. But here's another: the US is one of the free-est western countries, yet we are also one of the most conservative. Brainwashing and freedom are incompatible with each other - by your logic, our freedom should make us want to be more socialist, like Europe. And third, there's that pesky data which still shows that things are, in fact, getting better under capitalism.

You mean like the way EHM/multinationals hop from one country to another exploiting labor around the world (NAFTA/CAFTA)? [emphasis added]

Huh? How is the freedom to choose where to build a manufacturing plant being forced on them? That is a completely unrelated issue - and its wrong in its own right (the part in bold), but I won't discuss it because its a diversion.

No, SOS, you know what I mean: forced equality of outcome, ie the redistribution of weath has proven to be an economic disaster. This isn't theory or opinion, its historical fact. The reasons why are a long discussion, but its useless to hold that discussion until you acknowledge the underlying fact. Let me phrase it in a way that may be more palateable to you:

[with the exception of a few elite] The populous of the USSR shared roughly equally in the medicrity of their economy.

Ie, few people were spared from the tiny apartments, breadlines, and lack of luxuries that characterized life in the USSR. Income equality was far "better" in the USSR than in the US, while the mean/median standard of living was far worse.

Do you acknowledge this fact?

It should be a simple one to acknowlege, but if you want some info on it, HERE it is. Once you acknowledge it, then we can discuss why.

And like there is allegiance to a country, or care for the environment, or care for anything except profit? Doesn’t that anger you?

I have no answer for those questions: they have nothing at all to do with the post you are responding to.

… 'we will take money from the rich and give it to you'. Or maybe the idea is that the rich should pay their fair share. Do you support tax cuts for the rich, including removal of the “Death Tax?”

Of course the rich should pay their fair share. So tell me: what is their fair share? Yes, I support the repeal of the "death tax". It is not fair. The way the democrat party posturing works is that the rich should never get tax cuts and the poor should always get tax cuts. There is never any debate about what actually is their fair share.

Guest worker amnesty, trade agreements like CAFTA—talk about leveling the playing field, and who’s tricking who? Who benefits from these things—that’s who.

As a side note, this is not just effecting the U.S. – Here’s an article entitled: "The Big Squeeze: A 'second wave' of offshoring could threaten middle-income, white-collar and skilled blue-collar jobs."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7936464/site/newsweek/site/newsweek/

I'm trying hard to relate all this to the post of mine you quoted. Its a stretch, but all I can say is: incomes are up and poverty is down, both in the US, and in the world. Capitalism is a gift that has given to virtually everyone it has touched.

 

[russ_watters]

The more I think about this, the more it irritates me:

It makes more sense that those with power (the 1% with wealth) would be responsible for propaganda protecting the status quo they benefit from so much—and use both political parties to that end.

...you think the Right[and even the left?] is brainwashing people and that is why the country is moving to the right. ...US is one of the free-est western countries, yet we are also one of the most conservative. Brainwashing and freedom are incompatible with each other - by your logic, our freedom should make us want to be more socialist, like Europe.

SOS, how can you even suggest such a thing? You do understand that the US is, in fact, one of the free-est countries in the world, right? And that that includes freedom of the press, right? You do understand that a large part of what kept the USSR and other pseudo-communist countries together was propaganda, right? Please tell me I misunderstood you, because the idea that democracy/capitalism work because of brainwashing is one of the most rediculous and offensive things I've ever heard in this forum.

 

[Informal Logic]

The more I think about this, the more it irritates me.

Complete disregard for other view points is irritating too.

 

[selfAdjoint]

The more I think about this, the more it irritates me:


SOS, how can you even suggest such a thing? You do understand that the US is, in fact, one of the free-est countries in the world, right? And that that includes freedom of the press, right? You do understand that a large part of what kept the USSR and other pseudo-communist countries together was propaganda, right? Please tell me I misunderstood you, because the idea that democracy/capitalism work because of brainwashing is one of the most rediculous and offensive things I've ever heard in this forum.

Rediculous & Offensive is it? How about that pack of lies the administration sold the public during the election camplaign. WMD, yellowcake, Osama and Saddam were buddies, the swift boat smear, the smears against McCain during the primary. It was certainly propaganda ("propagation of the faith") and since it worked we can call it brainwashing.
Or read the new book Death of a Thousand Cuts about how they sold the abolition of the inheritance task to the public based on polls that showed the US people fondly believe themselve to be in the upper percentiles of income, when they're nowhere close. Now THAT'S propaganda!

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Rediculous & Offensive is it? How about that pack of lies the administration sold the public during the election camplaign. WMD, yellowcake, Osama and Saddam were buddies, the swift boat smear, the smears against McCain during the primary. It was certainly propaganda ("propagation of the faith") and since it worked we can call it brainwashing.
Or read the new book Death of a Thousand Cuts about how they sold the abolition of the inheritance task to the public based on polls that showed the US people fondly believe themselve to be in the upper percentiles of income, when they're nowhere close. Now THAT'S propaganda!

I think the point is that it cuts both ways. There were propaganda campaigns for both sides and quite a bit of that propaganda was questioning the policies of our government. Would that have happened in the Soviet Union, and if so would it have gotten very far? In the Soviet Union would the general populace have had access to dissenting view points? Could they just pick up a news paper, go to the library, or get on the net and look up information that may be contrary to what their government is telling them? If the people are too lazy to figure out whether or not they really agree with what their government is doing it's their own fault. There is nothing here in this country keeping that option from them.

Personally I would prefer that there weren't any propaganda, that politicians would just be honest, but I know that I can't really expect that from any major candidate no matter what their affiliation.

 

[SOS2008]

...The reason why is that the middle class is not in peril. The middle class is prospering.

I suppose since you say so it must be true, and all the debate, articles, and reports on the topic are just...(the Democrats trying to brainwash everyone?). For those who obtain news from sources other than FOX News, aside from the article previously provided entitled: "The Big Squeeze - A 'second wave' of offshoring could threaten middle-income, white-collar and skilled blue-collar jobs." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7936464/site/newsweek/site/newsweek/ -

Tonight regarding ongoing reports entitled: "Assault On The Middle Class" CNN: Aired June 2, 2005 - 18:00 ET (note this evening's report pertains to the minimum wage becoming a living wage, per debate in an earlier thread):

…[the] middle class squeeze, how a rising number of cities are introducing living wage laws to protect American workers.

Still ahead, one American city's answer to the federal government's paltry minimum wage. It's called a living wage. We'll have a special report.

PILGRIM: A rising number of American cities are lifting their minimum wage and paying workers what's called a living wage. Now, the programs are partly designed to counteract the effects of low-pay, low-skilled illegal aliens. And tonight, a new study finds a four- year-old living wage in Los Angeles is greatly benefiting workers. Casey Wian reports.

CASEY WIAN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Maria Mosqueda works for a security services company in the baggage claim areas of Los Angeles International Airport. She used to make about $7 an hour, until the city passed its living wage law in 1997. Now she earns more than $10 an hour, the minimum required of most contractors doing business with Los Angeles.

MARIA MOSQUEDA, AIRPORT WORKER: The living wage is the -- raised the standard of my life, especially right here (INAUDIBLE) you see for them. You see they got better service and better employees.

WIAN: That's consistent with a new study on the Los Angeles living wage. It found that pay increased nearly 20 percent for 10,000 workers, or about $26,000 a year for those at the low end of the pay scale.

(on camera): Surprisingly, the authors found that only 112 jobs were lost, or fewer than 1 percent of the affected positions. Los Angeles' living wage law is one of 54 that have been adopted by big cities and counties nationwide. Sixteen others are being considered.

(voice-over): Supporters say they are necessary, because the federal minimum wage has not kept pace with inflation. Another reason: The recent influx of illegal aliens.

ALAN ZAREMBERG, PRESIDENT, CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE: What happens is that we see a higher-skilled worker being attracted to it…

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0506/02/ldt.01.html

Interesting...so higher-skilled workers (Americans) are attracted to jobs--the jobs Americans supposedly won't do--when they are able to make a living with that wage. I wonder where they are being attracted from...aside from unemployment lines. Of course the draw back is it displaces less-skilled workers...hmm, these less-skilled workers aren't illegal by any chance?

I would agree with that as well. Again, though, why? The answer to that is The American Dream - something Marx never considered possible: total class mobility. The lower class don't want to punish the upper class, they want to become the upper class - and they know in the system we have, that is a possibility.

The American Dream is appropriately named, and thus my reference to it as a lottery mentality. What are the chances a person will become like Bill Gates? People like to gamble (in rising numbers) even though they lose far more than they win. So what does this say?

The birth control example is near-perfect: the Catholic Church is very near splitting over that issue (and several others) because women are not accepting the church's position.

As you state, there is a split, and that includes women who still embrace the position.

Capitalism is a gift that has given to virtually everyone it has touched.

Lord have mercy, hallelujah, come to Jesus, er um capitalism!

 

[alexandra]

I think the point is that it cuts both ways. There were propaganda campaigns for both sides and quite a bit of that propaganda was questioning the policies of our government. Would that have happened in the Soviet Union, and if so would it have gotten very far? In the Soviet Union would the general populace have had access to dissenting view points? Could they just pick up a news paper, go to the library, or get on the net and look up information that may be contrary to what their government is telling them? If the people are too lazy to figure out whether or not they really agree with what their government is doing it's their own fault. There is nothing here in this country keeping that option from them.

Personally I would prefer that there weren't any propaganda, that politicians would just be honest, but I know that I can't really expect that from any major candidate no matter what their affiliation.

I do have an argument against what you write here - in the words of a famous politician (the most powerful man on earth, in fact): "You're either with us or against us". Dissenting views? Democracy? I don't know - you'd have to be pretty brave to speak up if you dissented! The amazing thing is that millions of people all over the world were actually that brave.

 

[SOS2008]

However, where the theory may be wrong, is that the proletariat also identifies with the capitalists, and therefore do not experience “alienation.”

Or maybe American workers are feeling alienation. Tonight on CNN:

Violence and the threat of violence are also rising in the American workplace. A new study finds the loss of millions of American jobs, millions of them, to cheap foreign labor markets is behind much of the rage.

Bill Tucker reports.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BILL TUCKER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Scenes like this from a shooting at Jeep's Toledo, Ohio, plant by a disgruntled employee earlier this year are all too familiar. An angry employee unleashes that wrath in the workplace.

Not every unhappy employee commits murder and suicide, but there is an alarming increase in violence in the workplace. A survey by more than 600 human resources and security executives found 82 percent reported an increase in workplace violence in the last two years. The reasons are basic.

DOUG KANE, RISK CONTROL STRATEGIES: We've seen a lot of companies being downsized over the last several years. As a result of that, they're turning to off-shoring and outsourcing a lot of their activities. As a result of that, some of the employees now are tasked with training their replacements, which, again, creates somewhat of a hostile work environment.

TUCKER: Fifty-eight percent of those responding to the survey by Risk Control Strategies say employees have threatened to assault or kill senior managers. It's the uncertainty of the job place, compounded with economic pressures, that often push employees over the edge. The new bankruptcy bill which allows wages to be garnished is expected to worsen the problem.

LARRY CHAVEZ, CRITICAL INCIDENT ASSOCIATES: With the downturn in the economy, and with the loss of jobs on a relatively massive scale, it's not going to take much more beyond that to have someone thinking negative thoughts about their organization.

TUCKER: Bottom line for employees, they take their work very personally, while their employers forget they're people and treat them as a line item in the budget.

(on camera): But a separate and soon to be released survey show a decline in outsourcing trends found that employee backlash is a major concern among companies considering outsourcing. Eighty-eight percent said they're more concerned about employee backlash than they are about severance costs or customer reaction.

Bill Tucker, CNN, New York.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I do have an argument against what you write here - in the words of a famous politician (the most powerful man on earth, in fact): "You're either with us or against us". Dissenting views? Democracy? I don't know - you'd have to be pretty brave to speak up if you dissented! The amazing thing is that millions of people all over the world were actually that brave.

Your example is a piece or rhetoric though. It's not law.
This is what the law states, more specifically the first amendment of the constitution...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

People don't have to be brave either. You can read quite a few dissenting view points right here on PF. Not that I would say any of these people are not brave but that I don't believe they are exercising any particular amount of bravery in posting their opinions. I listen to a lot of talk radio, many of the hosts are quite conservative, and even they criticize Bush.

 

[Burnsys]

The more I think about this, the more it irritates me:


SOS, how can you even suggest such a thing? You do understand that the US is, in fact, one of the free-est countries in the world, right? And that that includes freedom of the press, right? You do understand that a large part of what kept the USSR and other pseudo-communist countries together was propaganda, right? Please tell me I misunderstood you, because the idea that democracy/capitalism work because of brainwashing is one of the most rediculous and offensive things I've ever heard in this forum.

There is somenthing simple about brainwashing and capitalism, if people where not brainwashing into beliving in private banking, the whole system would collapse.

It's not posible that the people and the government has to pay the bankers for their services of creating new money for the comunity...

I would like to know (if it's posible) of the total amount of money lent by private banks. how much goes to the top 1% of the population...

--------------------------------------------------
"The few who can understand the System (Cheque Money and Credits) will either be so interested in its profits, or so dependent on its favours, that there will be no opposition from that class. While on the other hand, the great body of people mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantage that capital derives from the system, will bear its burdens without complaint and perhaps without even suspecting that the system is inimical (hostile, hurtful) to their interests.

 

[alexandra]

Your example is a piece or rhetoric though. It's not law.
This is what the law states, more specifically the first amendment of the constitution...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

You got me curious, TheStatutoryApe, so I did a google search and looked up the USSR Constitution. The 1936 Constitution is an interesting read in general (Article 10 and Article 12 may be surprising to some) – but Chapter 10 is the most pertinent to our discussion. All articles in Chapter 10 are interesting, but the most relevant are:

ARTICLE 124. In order to ensure to citizens freedom of conscience, the church in the U.S.S.R. is separated from the state, and the school from the church. Freedom of religious worship and freedom of antireligious propaganda is recognized for all citizens.

ARTICLE 125. In conformity with the interests of the working people, and in order to strengthen the socialist system, the citizens of the U.S.S.R. are guaranteed by law:
freedom of speech;
freedom of the press;
freedom of assembly, including the holding of mass meetings;
freedom of street processions and demonstrations.
These civil rights are ensured by placing at the disposal of the working people and their organizations printing presses, stocks of paper, public buildings, the streets, communications facilities and other material requisites for the exercise of these rights.

http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/russian/const/36cons04.html#chap10

By 1977, the USSR Constitution had been changed; nevertheless, Chapter 7 states:

Article 50. In accordance with the interests of the people and in order to strengthen and develop the socialist system, citizens of the USSR are guaranteed freedom of speech, of the press, and of assembly, meetings, street processions and demonstrations. Exercise of these political freedoms is ensured by putting public buildings, streets and squares at the disposal of the working people and their organisations, by broad dissemination of information, and by the opportunity to use the press, television, and radio.

Article 51. In accordance with the aims of building communism, citizens of the USSR have the right to associate in public organisations that promote their political activity and initiative and satisfaction of their various interests. Public organisations are guaranteed conditions for successfully performing the functions defined in their rules.

Article 52. Citizens of the USSR are guaranteed freedom of conscience, that is, the right to profess or not to profess any religion, and to conduct religious worship or atheistic propaganda. Incitement of hostility or hatred on religious grounds is prohibited. In the USSR, the church is separated from the state, and the school from the church. http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/2445/77cons02.htm#chap07

 

[alexandra]

Another perspective in matters discussed in the 'Anti-american' thread

It is so tedious when people discuss things from an uninformed position – it is then that ‘discussions’ degenerate into shouting matches. In case anyone is interested, here is an extract from a lengthy, serious analysis of why the 'war on Iraq' and why the French, German and Russian administrations opposed it:

The United States and the United Kingdom did not wage war on Iraq for the officially stated reasons. That much is obvious. The world’s superpower and its key ally were not acting because they feared the Iraqi government’s weapons of mass destruction or its ties with the terrorist group al-Qaeda. Nor were they fighting to bring democracy to the Middle East, a region where the two governments had long supported reactionary monarchs and odious dictators, including Iraqi president Saddam Hussein himself.

It is time, then, to set aside the sterile discussions about “intelligence failures” and to consider a deeper reason for the conflict. This paper will argue that the war was primarily a “war for oil” in which large, multinational oil companies and their host governments acted in secret concert to gain control of Iraq's fabulous oil reserves and to gain leverage over other national oil producers. In arguing for the primacy of oil, we do not imply that other factors were not at play. The imperial dreams of the neo-con advisors in Washington contributed to the final outcome, as did the re-election strategies of the political operatives in the White House. But the Iraq war did not emerge solely from the Bush administration. As we shall see, it involved both London and Washington, through the course of many governments. And it emerged from a decades-long effort by the world's largest companies to appropriate the planet's most lucrative natural resource deposits.

...

The big US-UK companies made no secret of their strong desire for Iraqi oil. BP and Shell conducted secret negotiations with Saddam Hussein, while Exxon and Chevron took a harder line and waited for Washington to eliminate Saddam covertly. In 1997, as the sanctions lost international support, Russia’s Lukoil, France’s Total, China National and other companies struck deals with the government of Iraq for production sharing in some of Iraq’s biggest and most lucrative fields. Lukoil reached an agreement for West Qurna, Total got Majnoun, while China National signed on for North Rumaila, near the Kuwaiti border.44 Paris, Moscow and Beijing, as Permanent Members in the UN Security Council pressed for an easing of the sanctions, with support from a growing number of other countries. Grassroots movements, concerned about Iraq’s humanitarian crisis, called on the UN Security Council to end the sanctions forthwith.

In 1997-98, the US companies saw the writing on the wall. With Iranian fields already slipping into the hands of competitors, such losses in Iraq threatened to reduce them to second rank and confront them with fierce international competition and downward profit pressure. The companies stepped up their lobbying in Washington and made their wishes for Iraq oil crystal clear. “Iraq possesses huge reserves of oil and gas – reserves I’d love Chevron to have access to,” enthused Chevron CEO Kenneth T. Derr in a speech at the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco. More: http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2003/2003companiesiniraq.htm

 

[vanesch]

serious analysis of why the 'war on Iraq' and why the French, German and Russian administrations opposed it:

I think that's too simplistic. I don't know about the Russian side, but the people in the French and the German governments didn't have any strong ties to the oil industry and there were PLENTY of reasons to oppose Washington on that issue, without oil having to be a part of it. I would even think that if the oil industry had something to say, they'd rather go in. After all, not so many nations were jumping to go to war, so the cake would only have been split up in a few big, juicy pieces, to be divided between the few warmogers. If the French, after some initial hesitation, wanted to get oil on their hands, they would just have had to join Bush in the end - he'd be very happy and ready to concede some part of the cake in return for the favor... at least if they believed that his plan had any hope of working out.

 

[alexandra]

I think that's too simplistic. I don't know about the Russian side, but the people in the French and the German governments didn't have any strong ties to the oil industry and there were PLENTY of reasons to oppose Washington on that issue, without oil having to be a part of it.

I disagree that it's too simplistic, vanesch - that article (and other sources I have read, and the sources of information it refers to) provides plenty of evidence regarding French, German and Russian oil interests in the region. It is, in my opinion, when you leave oil out of the picture that the analysis gets simplistic. The question I always ask when I'm trying to understand something major happening in the world is: "Who would benefit (materially) from adopting such a policy?" - and (of course) "How would they benefit?". The reason I trust the answers to such questions is because of my beginning assumption that politicians govern on behalf of big business. My original assumption is based on what I find to be compelling evidence - but we may disagree about this. I never look for reasons in terms of 'psychology' or 'morality' or anything as intangible as that: I always look for the material causes of human actions. This just seems to make a heck of a lot more sense to me than anything else: who benefits? how do they benefit?

I would even think that if the oil industry had something to say, they'd rather go in. After all, not so many nations were jumping to go to war, so the cake would only have been split up in a few big, juicy pieces, to be divided between the few warmogers. If the French, after some initial hesitation, wanted to get oil on their hands, they would just have had to join Bush in the end - he'd be very happy and ready to concede some part of the cake in return for the favor... at least if they believed that his plan had any hope of working out.

I think your last sentence is the key - this is the gamble the French, German and Russian administrations were taking - that the US wouldn't proceed as planned without their support. I can't, of course, state this with any certainty - it is just the conclusion I have reached as a result of the reading I have done, and it makes logical sense to me. If the French had joined in, they would still not have gotten much out of the deal - as the article I linked to states:

Oil companies’ future profits – and their current share prices and market capitalization – depend to a large degree on their control of reserves. The 1972 oil nationalizations in Iraq pushed the US and UK companies completely out of the country. Before that date, they held a three-quarter share of the Iraq Petroleum Company, including Iraq’s entire national reserves. After 1972, all that oil disappeared from their balance sheets.

In the 1980s and 90s, their rivals in France, Russia and even Japan and China began to make deals that led towards lucrative production sharing agreements, allowing those competitors to gain a large potential share of Iraq’s oil reserves. The sanctions regime, enforced under the United Nations and maintained at the insistence of the US and UK from 1990 to 2003, prevented these deals from coming to fruition, thus protecting the future stake of the US-UK companies...

The big US-UK companies made no secret of their strong desire for Iraqi oil. BP and Shell conducted secret negotiations with Saddam Hussein, while Exxon and Chevron took a harder line and waited for Washington to eliminate Saddam covertly. In 1997, as the sanctions lost international support, Russia’s Lukoil, France’s Total, China National and other companies struck deals with the government of Iraq for production sharing in some of Iraq’s biggest and most lucrative fields. Lukoil reached an agreement for West Qurna, Total got Majnoun, while China National signed on for North Rumaila, near the Kuwaiti border.44 Paris, Moscow and Beijing, as Permanent Members in the UN Security Council pressed for an easing of the sanctions, with support from a growing number of other countries. Grassroots movements, concerned about Iraq’s humanitarian crisis, called on the UN Security Council to end the sanctions forthwith.

In 1997-98, the US companies saw the writing on the wall. With Iranian fields already slipping into the hands of competitors, such losses in Iraq threatened to reduce them to second rank and confront them with fierce international competition and downward profit pressure. The companies stepped up their lobbying in Washington and made their wishes for Iraq oil crystal clear. “Iraq possesses huge reserves of oil and gas – reserves I’d love Chevron to have access to,” enthused Chevron CEO Kenneth T. Derr in a speech at the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2003/2003companiesiniraq.htm

This analysis seems to me quite compelling given the supporting evidence that even if France, Germany and Russia had joined in the war, the European oil companies would have gotten 'breadcrumbs' (relatively speaking) in return. I think they gambled by withdrawing their support in order to prevent the whole thing from happening in the first place (so they - the European and Russian companies - could keep their contracts). I don't know, as I said earlier - but it seems to me to be a plausible theory...

 

[alexandra]

Just to add to my above post: none of this has anything at all to do with the American, French, German and Russian people - ordinary people will in no way benefit from the huge profits being made by the large oil coroporations. So it is not a 'nationalistic' fight, and to adopt defensive, patriotic stances on this issue seems to me a futile exercise. The 'war on Iraq' is a battle between corporate giants and, as far as I can see, all ordinary people lose out (especially the Iraqi people, but also the soldiers who are dying and being maimed for life and taxpayers who bear the brunt of the cost).

 

[Art]

The question I always ask when I'm trying to understand something major happening in the world is: "Who would benefit (materially) from adopting such a policy?" - and (of course) "How would they benefit?"

In this instance I suspect Tony Blair actually believed in the justice of the war in Iraq. I think he probably genuinely thought it was the best way to help the Iraqi people who were suffering under sanctions which would never be lifted as long as Saddam remained in power. I may stand open to correction but as far as I know in terms of material benefit Britain doesn't seem to have gained or even sought any advantage from it's actions. In fact the British press were screaming about all the post war rebuilding contracts going to US firms and even then the British government said nothing.
I may be wrong but I think the difference between the US and British adminstrations is that T. Blair might have done the wrong thing for the right reasons whereas Bush did the wrong thing for the wrong reasons.

 

[vanesch]

I may be wrong but I think the difference between the US and British adminstrations is that T. Blair might have done the wrong thing for the right reasons whereas Bush did the wrong thing for the wrong reasons.

Well, strange as it may seem, I also have that impression. Probably Blair (rightly) assumed that the US - UK relations were of such quality that he could not imagine Bush LYING to him on purpose. So probably he was one of the few European leaders (probably blinded by his trust in his trans-atlantic friendship) who really believed Bush.

 

[alexandra]

I may stand open to correction but as far as I know in terms of material benefit Britain doesn't seem to have gained or even sought any advantage from it's actions. In fact the British press were screaming about all the post war rebuilding contracts going to US firms and even then the British government said nothing.

Here's the evidence, Art:

8 August 2003
...
In mid-July BP took possession of its reward -- one of the first tankers of oil from Southern Iraq, having won 25% of the initial sale of 8 million barrels of the existing stockpiles of Iraqi oil. The previous month California-based Chevron shipped back an equal quantity of oil from southern Iraq.
...
To the Victors Go the Spoils

Shell along with Chevron, BP and seven other oil giants, have won contracts to buy Iraq's new oil production of Basra Light crude. The contracts cover production from the Mina Al-Bakr port in southern Iraq from August to December of this year. Under the deal, Iraq will supply 645,000 barrels per day (bpd) for export, an increase on the 450,000 bpd produced in July but still just a third of pre-war levels.

BP and Shell will each send one very large tanker every month to Iraq to pick up their two million barrels. Among the other companies that have signed deals to buy the oil are ConocoPhillips, Valero Energy and Marathon Oil, Total of France, Sinochem of China and a company from the Mitsubishi group, which is buying for Japanese refineries.
...
Working in Iraq has helped bolster Halliburton's finances. The company made a profit of $26 million, in contrast to a loss of $498 million over the same time period a year earlier. The company stated that 9 percent, or $324 million, of its second-quarter revenue of $3.6 billion came from its work in Iraq.

More (it's interesting): http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=7989

I may be wrong but I think the difference between the US and British adminstrations is that T. Blair might have done the wrong thing for the right reasons whereas Bush did the wrong thing for the wrong reasons.

Have you heard of/read the 'Downing Street Memos' yet, Art? Written a year before the invasion of Iraq, here are some extracts from one of them (each page is marked 'Secret UK Eyes Only'):

A legal justification for invasion would be needed. Subject to Law Officers advice, none currently exists. This makes moving quickly to invade illegally very difficult. We should therefore consider a staged approach, establishing international support, building up pressure on Saddam, and developing military plans. There is a lead time of about 6 months to a ground offensive….But there is no greater threat now that he [Hussein] will use WMD than there has been in recent years… More: http://thinkprogress.org/wp-images/upload/iraqoptionspaper.pdf

 

[vanesch]

It is, in my opinion, when you leave oil out of the picture that the analysis gets simplistic. The question I always ask when I'm trying to understand something major happening in the world is: "Who would benefit (materially) from adopting such a policy?" - and (of course) "How would they benefit?".

Of course "oil" was a major factor, but not in the way you present it. CEO's of oil companies telling their political leaders what to do and not - I don't believe that. Politicians have other agendas, mainly: being re-elected.
But of course "oil" was a major factor in the bigger picture: if the plan (you know, blitzkrieg, Iraqi children waving American flags...) succeeded, the US would have gained an enormous influence in the region: not only would they have dominated of course the new Iraq, but the domino effect would have made them the "good daddy" of the whole oil-pumping region. That would then give an enormous political influence.

The problem is that that plan was so terribly naive that it was obvious from the start that it wouldn't work out. If it were realistic, I wouldn't even have minded - it would have been a good thing for the West in general ; it would have been good for the local people (no more local dictators etc...) and it would have been good for Israel ; also it would have undercut all reasons of existence for islamic terrorists. Great idea. But it was clearly bound to fail.

 

[alexandra]

Of course "oil" was a major factor, but not in the way you present it. CEO's of oil companies telling their political leaders what to do and not - I don't believe that.

We disagree then; I do believe this.

Politicians have other agendas, mainly: being re-elected.

Who decides whether or not they get re-elected, vanesch? 'The people'? Even if 'the people' decide - who influences the peoples' decisions? You should not be so inconsistent, vanesch - in other discussions you have admitted to being 'elitist'; you should be consistent about your views about whether or not 'the people' are capable of making informed decisions. In my view, very powerful business interests use the business-owned mass media to determine who will be elected.

But of course "oil" was a major factor in the bigger picture: if the plan (you know, blitzkrieg, Iraqi children waving American flags...) succeeded, the US would have gained an enormous influence in the region: not only would they have dominated of course the new Iraq, but the domino effect would have made them the "good daddy" of the whole oil-pumping region. That would then give an enormous political influence.

Quite.

The problem is that that plan was so terribly naive that it was obvious from the start that it wouldn't work out. If it were realistic, I wouldn't even have minded - it would have been a good thing for the West in general ; it would have been good for the local people (no more local dictators etc...) and it would have been good for Israel ; also it would have undercut all reasons of existence for islamic terrorists. Great idea. But it was clearly bound to fail.

It would have been good for some of the local people - a very small group: the puppets, who would (will?) be richly rewarded. It would have been good for Israel - I guess they could finally just walk into the rest of the Palestinian territories and wipe out the locals with total impunity. As for undercutting the reasons for the existence of 'islamic terrorists' - I'm not too sure about that. There seems to have been an upsurge in such activity, and I think this would have been the case even if the 'coalition victory' had been achieved. People generally don't like having their valuable resources stolen.

 

[vanesch]

Who decides whether or not they get re-elected, vanesch? 'The people'? Even if 'the people' decide - who influences the peoples' decisions? You should not be so inconsistent, vanesch - in other discussions you have admitted to being 'elitist'; you should be consistent about your views about whether or not 'the people' are capable of making informed decisions. In my view, very powerful business interests use the business-owned mass media to determine who will be elected.

I haven't seen that over here. To me, the answer to "who influences the people's decisions", is: populist politicians. I've seen it happening here with the EU constitution: all social-democrat, conservative,... politicians, all business organisations, many intellectuals etc... were in favor of it, nevertheless, who called for the no-vote ? Extreme right (nationalists - understandably) and extreme left (Trotskist revolutionaries) - together with labor unions: they managed, in 5 months time, to make it swing from 60-40 in favor to 57 - 43 against. It has to be said that the extreme-left is lead by a very media-savvy leader.


cheers,
Patrick.

 

[alexandra]

I haven't seen that over here. To me, the answer to "who influences the people's decisions", is: populist politicians. I've seen it happening here with the EU constitution: all social-democrat, conservative,... politicians, all business organisations, many intellectuals etc... were in favor of it, nevertheless, who called for the no-vote ? Extreme right (nationalists - understandably) and extreme left (Trotskist revolutionaries) - together with labor unions: they managed, in 5 months time, to make it swing from 60-40 in favor to 57 - 43 against. It has to be said that the extreme-left is lead by a very media-savvy leader.

Thanks for the information, vanesch - I shall have to do some reading on French politics when I get a chance. Who is the media-savvy leader? Does he/she claim to be Trotskyist?

 

[vanesch]

Who is the media-savvy leader? Does he/she claim to be Trotskyist?

Olivier Besancenot. I think he has a lawyer's degree, but he has a job as a simple postman ; nevertheless he's the leader of a political party, which is worth about 5 - 10% of the electorate.

EDIT: no, I was wrong, he's a historian.

http://www.radiofranceinternationale.fr/actuchaude/images/imagesActu/France_elections2002/elections/o_besancenot.htm

EDIT2: his party is LCR, Ligue Communiste Revolutionaire - I don't know all the details but yes I think he considers himself Trotksyist (didn't know one wrote it that way)

 

[vanesch]

I said:

I've seen it happening here with the EU constitution: all social-democrat, conservative,... politicians, all business organisations, many intellectuals etc... were in favor of it, nevertheless, who called for the no-vote ? Extreme right (nationalists - understandably) and extreme left (Trotskist revolutionaries)...

In fact I forgot to mention an important point: not ALL social-democrat politicians were in favor: there was ONE influencial person (Laurent Fabius) who went against the official party line and "adhered with extreme-left" because the constitution was too "right-wing". His "change of camps" made in fact the swing happen with the moderate left wing voters. Now, this change of camps is very incomprehensible, as Fabius has been former prime minister, minister of economy and so on, and usually took on rather "right wing" views within the social democrats, and was very favorable of all previous European treaties. His career got a sudden backlash when he was held responsable in some scandals (he was not found legally guilty, but he had the political responsability). Probably the better explanation was that he wanted to differentiate himself from the leader of the party, to become the presidential candidate in 2007 (and not the party leader), and took the extreme-left wave to propulse him on the foreground, so as not to appear as a follower.

 

[Smurf]

From here: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=756904#post756904
I can't believe you ****tards hijacked me and Vanesch's thread. Bastards.

 

[Townsend]

From here: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=756904#post756904
I can't believe you ****tards hijacked me and Vanesch's thread. Bastards.

I love it when people go around acting all innocent...

I wonder how many threads you've hijacked in your time Smurf...